Greetings Economists, Bravo Charles. This is a brilliant synthesis of Sandwichman's aesthetics, and Yoshie's drive to open up the Marxist analysis of the developed capitalist cultures. On Aug 22, 2006, at 8:27 AM, Charles Brown wrote:
What distinguishes humans from animals is culture.
Doyle; From this comment I think I can address better Sandwichman's comment about reductionism which says here: Sandwichman writes; it seems that the traditional marxist anthropology has emphasized subsistence at the expense of the aesthetic (notwithstanding that there has always been a strong current of marxist aesthetics that resists such a reductionism). Doyle; I think there is a problem with the concept of reductionism, which I've written about before. Sandwichman wrote about Economic Determinist, and that 'rule bound' analysis (Determinist analysis) is what is the problem rather than say parts from the whole (reductionism). There are two branches of math related to the principle of reductionism, set theory, and Mereology (see here in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology ), which says to me that parts from the whole is not the central problem with a determinist theory. In so far as Sandwichman is concerned with aesthetics, and following Yoshie's trail blazing down the path of this inquiry, a good place for Marxist is to reconsider, Sartre and De Beauvoir. Their books follow the principle of a writers life, to fully write their lives via aesthetics in a realist way. So De Beauvoir grappled with homosexual themes in her life and shrank back even though she came through with addressing the sad lack in Marxism about Women. I would say that what jumps out at me is the reliance on writing as a means of exploring aesthetics is a primary way we could explode culture in a Marxist way exactly in Charles point above. We can see a focus in a small group of avantguardist to explore fringes or margins of culture to develop certain sorts of themes like Sartre's 'being'. What is obvious to me is the one-to-many character of text. An aesthetic that is shaped by that sort of informational context inevitably cannot really address marginal social groups in how they really 'connect'. So why not say (during the Nazi occupation of Paris) for example some men went to back alleys to suck cock, the existentialists could not bring themselves to openly write about their homosexual activities for fear of prison. To bring this to the present, do Marxist have the means to build social groups that can withstand Capitalist pressure? We see how Israel tore apart Secularist in Palestine. While they thought the Islamist would be controllable being religious backwards. But the social cohesion of Islamist proved able enough in resistance to Israel's modern war machine. We have a gauge here, build a social network in the developed world that is robust, and strong, and despite the capitalist tools can both grow, and offer tangible and rewarding alternatives. For example I think we can much better address racism or sexism by not so much a focus on standard of living rewards, than by offering social relations that end those isms. A Marxist aesthetic of Sartre and De Beauvoir offers a fine laboratory in the Developed world of France up to at least 1968 to see how they elided their Marxist milieu while being drawn to it as well. But the aesthetic needs to be in a materialist mode. Aesthetics is metaphysics, and Marxism is materialist realism. So I would strongly suggest building suitable social networks for a Marxist developed world is what we need rather than a metaphysics of aesthetics attractions. A Marxist aesthetics, is about how people actually connect in a whole working class. In that regard the weakness of Marxist Aesthetics has been the theory of the parts of the whole together. So for example the women in the whole was vague and mysterious except in the sense that the economy would offer child care, but sent homos to prison. It is the building via communication structures of close emotional ties via various routes into the human brain that is roughly unexplored in Marxist materialist theories of social organization. The work process is privatized to the personal. That is the source of mystery. While say China is willing to demand one child per family, it is not able to open up sexuality. So that widespread homosexual activity might help regulate child bearing and free up the society to consider all manner of emotional connections as a basis of a Marxist culture. thanks, Doyle
